Christians are in a state of covenant with the Lord. One way that supreme covenant finds expression is through the “mini” covenant of their relations and duties to Christ’s local church. Because Christians are in covenant with Christ, they are to be in covenant with a local church. They are not “married” to the local church, but they are to be in a state of formal covenant with it. This “mini” covenant (an extension of our covenant with Christ) carries privileges and responsibilities, and is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, it is designed as a covenant of blessing and should be viewed with profound gratitude by the believer.
Contrary to what some say, there are sound biblical reasons for leaving one local church to attend another, but the reasons for departure must derive from sound biblical reasons, not personal whims and preferences. Biblically leaving a local church involves transferring covenant duties and privileges from one local body to another. It does not involve breaking a covenant.
To put it another way, the believer’s covenant with the local church can be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church, but it cannot be “resigned,” abandoned, or simply disregarded without the professing believer becoming a covenant-breaker. Furthermore, the way a family leaves a local church is an evidence of their maturity, integrity, and honor as a Christian. Every effort must be made to act honorably. This may take time, effort, and patience. This means candidly sharing your reasons with the church leadership, affirming your desire to avoid schism and division, and asking for their formal blessing for a membership transfer. Dropping off the face of the earth without candidly discussing issues with the elders with whom you are in covenant is simply dishonorable conduct.
Similarly, the willingness of church leadership to work with departing brethren (even discontent and divisive brethren) to transfer membership to other Christ-honoring church works is a sign that the leadership are men under authority, not dictators or autocrats. Membership covenants do not mean that local churches own people. Pastors and elders must never behave as if it is a crime for people to want to leave a church. It is a crime to be a covenant breaker, but it is not a crime to desire and act to honorably transfer your membership. Furthermore, a church member who is genuinely convinced that he should abandon his belief in paedo-baptism for credo-baptism, or credo-baptism for paedo-baptism, has not de facto “departed the faith.” He should not be denied transfer to a church that upholds the foundations of Christian orthodoxy (e.g. justification by faith, sufficiency or Scripture, the Trinity, etc.), because of his view on baptism.
Even in the midst of disagreement and conflict, every effort must be made by the party seeking to leave a local church to work within the God-appointed chain of authority. This means the Christian seeking to depart must sincerely strive to honor the very leaders with whom he disagrees, to honor the terms of his membership covenant with the local body, and to treat all men with integrity. The goal is for the departing believer to leave with the blessing of his elders and to receive from those elders a formal transfer of his covenant membership to a church of Jesus Christ.
Sometimes, sin on the part of either or both members and church leaders prevents these goals from being accomplished. It is my sense of things, however, that most church shepherds are happily willing to grant membership transfers to disagreeing brethren where (1) those brethren are genuinely trying to approach things in an honorable and respectful manner; and (2) where they seek a transfer to an orthodox Christian work (i.e., not into oblivion, or to a church which is at war with the foundations of Christian orthodoxy).
Perhaps the worst thing a disgruntled church member can do is to insinuate that the body with whom he disagrees is “a cult” or simply “cult-like” — as some form of a pretext for privately declaring his covenant with the church to be null and void. Cults do exist. They are wretched abominations which rightly should be denounced. But if a person is going to raise the “C” word publicly, they had best be prepared to defend such a charge before the world, and if found guilty of defaming a legitimate work of Christ, they must be prepared to face the consequences which are rightly due to those who divide brethren and slander the servants of the Lord.
Equally problematic is for church leaders to respond with hostility to those who go through the proper channels to raise concerns over doctrine and practice and who wish to peaceably depart because of matters of conscience. I know of one pastor who was so antagonistic to a confrontation and departure by some of his own co-elders, that he engaged in an ongoing campaign of slanders (and was confronted for such) that involved public Internet sermons, wild and unsubstantiated charges of legalism, gross mischaracterization of the views of those with whom he disagreed, and ultimately took the form of a formal Web site ostensibly dedicated to eradicating the cause of the split in his eldership, but clearly focused on his own self-justification. Such behavior divides the brethren, harms the body, is not the sign of mature leadership, and (no matter how carefully couched) is the mark of tyrants. In this case, the one pastor may not like the fact that one of his co-elders (and others in the congregation) fundamentally disapproved of his practice to endorse Christians placing their children in government schools, or promoting youth culture over family culture, or of having the daughters of his congregation join the United States military, but he would have been better served to address individual issues charitably and biblically than justifying irresponsible behavior on the grounds that those who disagree with him are simply pharisees and legalists.
Ninety-nine percent of the time, the problem of amicable membership transfers in the local church (like the problems in marriage, employment, and most of life) is a problem of honor. One or both parties acts lawlessly and dishonorably toward the other. Honor is key. Honor is crucial. Those who have true Christian love will act honorably.
Even as it is wrong for individuals to claim the status of “martyr for conscience and doctrine,” when they have acted dishonorably toward their local church and its leadership, it is wrong for pastors to use Christ’s pulpit for personal vendettas, or to arbitrarily refuse to transfer membership on some pretext of protecting Christ’s church.
The fact is this: Honorable men can disagree and still be friends. Honorable men can disagree and still work through problems. Honorable men can determine that it is necessary that they take separate paths to be truthful to their conscience. Only dishonorable conduct will absolutely guarantee division, discontent, and heartache.
From its inception, the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches and those leaders in association with it in the cause of unity between church and home have vigorously and vocally emphasized these principles and the duties of both shepherds and church members. Neither self-serving shepherds nor radically individualistic believers like this counsel, but it remains our deep abiding conviction.